Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

The Fix: Elizabeth Warrens answer on Hillary Clintons liberal credentials wasnt convincing at all

It's no secret that Hillary Clinton badly wants the approval of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (and the liberal wing of the party she represents) in advance of the former Secretary of State's near-certain 2016 bid. There was themeeting between the two at Clinton's DC house back in December and the various rhetorical bows Clinton has made to Warren's populist rhetoric over the past few months.

Given that recent history, what Warren had to say about Clinton during an appearance on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show Tuesday night has to be disappointing to Clintonworld. Here's the exchange:

Sharpton: A lot of progressives have questions about whether she'll [Hillary Clinton] be a progressive warrior. what would you say to them?

Warren: You know, I think that's what we gotta see. I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. that's what campaigns are supposed to be about.

Um, ok. If you look up the definition of "lukewarm," you find Warren's statement. She could have very easily said: "Look, Hillary Clinton and I have had a lot of good conversations lately and I am convinced that she will fight for the progressive principles that we both hold dear." But, she didn't say that. And there's a reason why not: Because, at least at the moment, Warren doesn't believe it.

Of course, there's a difference in politics between not being all that convinced in private and making clear you are not all that convinced in public. Warren chose the latter approach, likely because she wants to make sure the Clinton people know that she won't be a pushover. Warren quite clearly wants to remain apart from the ardent Clinton supporters in order to ensure that some of her policy priorities -- particularly a tough and aggressive approach to Wall Street -- are reflected in Clinton's campaign.

That stance doesn't mean Warren is itching to run against Clinton. (I still don't think she is.) But, it does mean that Warren, at least in the near term, may be Republicans' best friend -- providing all sorts of fodder for the GOP as they try to make the case that Clinton isn't really what the Democratic party wants.

Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.

Follow this link:
The Fix: Elizabeth Warrens answer on Hillary Clintons liberal credentials wasnt convincing at all

Hillary Clinton previews 2016, says its time to crack every last glass ceiling

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP Photo Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a keynote address at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Feb. 24, 2015, in Santa Clara, Calif.

SANTA CLARA, Calif. Declaring this the time to crack every last glass ceiling, Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated forcefully here Tuesday for greater economic mobility for women and said she hopes to lead a divided nation into a warm purple space of compromise.

Clintons appearance before 5,000 female leaders in the heart of Silicon Valleys technology industry left no doubt that she would run for president again. The overwhelming favorite for the 2016 Democratic nomination, Clinton said that she would announce her campaign in good time and that she was nearly finished checking off her pre-campaign to-do list.

She previewed themes of economic fairness and gender equality that are expected to form the heart of her pitch to voters, test-driving a stump speech in which she wove together economic statistics and personal anecdotes to call for a 21st-century economy for 21st-century families.

We have to restore economic growth with rising wages for the vast majority of Americans, and we have to restore trust and cooperation within our political system so that we can act like the great country we are, said Clinton, a former secretary of state.

Central to her message was pay equity for women. Clinton singled out Oscar-winning actress Patricia Arquette for her advocacy during the Academy Awards telecast Sunday night.

We all cheered at Patricia Arquettes speech at the Oscars because shes right, Clinton said. Its time to have wage equality once and for all.

Clinton lamented that too many Americans feel the ground shifting under their feet. Wages for middle-class workers have been stagnant, she said, while executive pay continues to rise.

In so many ways, our economy still seems to be operating like its 1955, Clinton said. She added, If we want to find our balance again, we have to figure out how to make this new economy work for everyone.

Clintons speech, followed by a question-and-answer session with tech columnist Kara Swisher, was a paid appearance at Lead On, Watermarks Silicon Valley Conference for Women, where tickets sold for $245. Organizers did not disclose her fee, but Clintons typical rate for West Coast speeches is $250,000 to $300,000.

More:
Hillary Clinton previews 2016, says its time to crack every last glass ceiling

Poutine vs Hillary Clinton : l’agressivit inverse des USA. – Video


Poutine vs Hillary Clinton : l #39;agressivit inverse des USA.

By: Nre Constant

Read the original:
Poutine vs Hillary Clinton : l'agressivit inverse des USA. - Video

Hillary Clinton opens up about marijuana views – LoneWolf Sager – Video


Hillary Clinton opens up about marijuana views - LoneWolf Sager
Hillary Clinton answers questions from CNN #39;s Christiane Amanpour during a town hall event "Happy Valentines Day To All To All A Good Night.....From LoneWol...

By: LoneWolf Sager

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton opens up about marijuana views - LoneWolf Sager - Video

Hillary Clinton should be disqualified, not Scott Walker …

The mainstream media are ready to write off Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker as a coward and unfit for the presidency because he wouldnt denounceRudy Giulianis comments questioning the presidents love for America. One can think it was ill advised(as a number of GOP contenders, including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as well as Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, have said), but it is a strange standard to apply (Denounce an ex-officials rants, or get out!). Who else has not commented on others remarks?

I have not heard Hillary Clinton denounce the leaks from the administration badmouthing the prime minister of Israel. She has not criticized the president for misleading Americans that they could keep their health-care insurance and their doctors. She did not decry the presidents assertion that gunning down Jews in a kosher market in France was random. She never condemned the remarks of former Middle East negotiator Martin Indyk blaming Israel for the breakdown in peace talks or of her successor in suggesting that America couldnt protect Israel or stave off boycotts of Israel if it didnt make peace with the Palestinians. And lets not get started on all the idiotic utterances Vice President Joe Biden has made. While President George W. Bush was in office, Clinton never denounced a host of comments questioning his motives, honesty, etc. Frankly, she has not been asked about such things because, well, why would she have to answer for everyone in her party who ever said something off-putting? If they can drag her into an interview, the media should ask her all these questions and more. If she refuses to answer, out of the race, they must declare! Yeah. Right.

Forget comments about others comments. Clinton wont tell us for she is in perpetual hiding what she thinks about the compelling issues of the day. She cant give her opinion on the Keystone XL pipeline. Anyone ask her if she thinks we are winning the war against the Islamic State, if we have improved our standing with Arab allies, if we have violated our promise to Ukraine to provide security in exchange for having given up its nukes, if Iran can be allowed to just unplug its centrifuges as the U.S. negotiators are apparently suggesting, or her opinion on any of hundreds of other knotty foreign or domestic issues?Isnt it pure cowardice for her to remain silent about an imminent deal that would leave Iran with thousands of centrifuges? Really, now is the time for candor and leadership. Knowing how untenable a nuclear-armed Iran would be, her silence is irresponsible. I wonder why the media arent pestering her for her position and decrying her silence as disqualifying for the job as commander in chief.

If one had to identify the single candidate in either party who most consistently refuses to take firm, public stances or criticize the candidates own party (including its president), you would be hard pressed to come up with a worse offender than Clinton. She wrote a book devoid of substance, but rather than declare her too timid to be president, the media yawned and said the book was pretty dull. And since her book tour disaster, she has been unwilling to present herself to the media for serious questioning.

And, of course, not a soul in the mainstream media suggests that a woman who takes millions from corporate titans who would have demands on her administration or who uses millions from foreign governments to fund her foundation (that, in turn, funds her luxury travel and employs a coterie of loyalists) has disqualified herself from high office. Brian Williams cannot stay on the air for telling stories of courage under fire, but Clintons gunfire-on-the-tarmac tale is long forgotten.

When they demand that Clinton get out of the race for not criticizing Democrats or even disclosing her views, then the mainstream medias criticism of Walker might be taken more seriously. Until then, maybe, to borrow the presidents phrase, they should get off their high horse before running out to banish an up-and-coming Republican candidate whose youth, blue-collar persona and political courage contrast so favorably with Clintons age, clueless 1 percent status and political cowardice.

One can be critical of Walker ducking an easy question about the presidents patriotism and even more so for his refusal to acknowledge that the president is a Christian. (I would agree with my colleague Michael Gerson, who observed on Meet the Press: Well, I think Republicans have a specific problem, the dangerous feedback loop between partisan media and populist candidates. And feud is the worst discourse. And all of a sudden, talk radio is the voice inside your head. And you cant address the country that way. Its too inward looking.) Walker cannot win simply by appealing to the anti-MSM base of the GOP, but must also assure donors and moderate voters he is ready for prime time. Buttrying to run Walker out of town on a rail is both a gross overreaction and evidence of the deeply embedded double standard in the mainstream media. Voters, not the media, ultimately will assess Walkers fitness for office. In the meantime, the media would be advised to start demanding candor from Clinton and then judge her by the same standard they apply to Walker.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

Read more:
Hillary Clinton should be disqualified, not Scott Walker ...